Subject:
|
Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Feb 2004 19:11:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
614 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Don Heyse wrote:
> And don't get me started on the marriage thing. Marriage is NOT a
> right. It's a construct invented by organized religion and supported
> by the government, ostensibly to provide some stability for children
> in order to safeguard our future. Demonstrate an equivalent benefit
> to society when it's extended to gay couples.
Marriage is also a formal statement of interpersonal committment, and the legal
recognition of marriage entitles the spouse to benefits and responsibilities not
available to non-spouses.
> Maybe someday, when biotech obliterates the difference between male and
> female...
No need for that; many same-sex couples already have children. If, as you
assert, one of the functions of marriage is to provide stability for children,
then how does it benefit those children to forbid their parents to be married?
> > I agree in the sense the government recognized marriage is useless.
> > Marriage in the sense of 2 people deciding to spend the rest of their
> > lives together and possibly raise offspring is fine.
>
> Why do you draw the line at 2 people?
Whatever else it is, marriage is also a legal contract, and currently held to be
a contract between two people. That doesn't change whether the two people are
male, female, or some combination of the two. Also, the two-person requirement
is not relevant to the Massachusetts decision, and attempts to blur the two
issues are inappropriate. Personally, though, if three or ten or fifty people
want to get married, I have no problem with it--why should I? I say the more
the merrier.
> And for that matter, why not
> allow 6 year olds to marry if they decide to.
Under standard US law, minors (the age varies locally, I grant) cannot be bound
to legal contracts that they enter on their own behalf. Until that law also is
changed, then the restriction against very young children marrying can stand
without being in conflict with increased access to marriage rights for adults.
> Figure out a way to reform this whole mess for the better and I'll
> support you on the marriage changes.
I don't know that there's too much mess, really. Why not simply declare that
marriage is a specific contract between two parties, with certain financial
requirements and benefits built-in? It's only a law, after all, so we can
expand it to apply to three or seven or twelve parties later, if we choose.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
| (...) Why do you draw the line at 2 people? And for that matter, why not allow 6 year olds to marry if they decide to. Like I said, the law is never going to be perfect. I just don't see how the proposed modifications to current marriage laws make (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
